Please cite the work of any climate scientist claiming the world is heading for armaggedon ?
I have asked them, read their reports, and articles. Try it sometime - it's very eye-opening.
Buzz the trend in the modern warming period usually defined as since 1978 is about 0.2C per decade, that is what the GISS record shows and now what has been collaborated by another site.That is nothing but another of your pathetic lies!!
What the hell, long?? Did you go and search for and cherry-pick an article to back up your original claim of ~0.2C per decade? It looks like you did!!
That is just messed up. You never said anything about 1978. All you did was give us all a graph of NASA's Gistemp starting in 2008 with the claim that warming was only ~0.2C per decade when, in fact, the trend for the data you cited was 0.32C per decade. And the article you just cited used NOAA data and not NASA data.
So What? One obscure reference to an old Russian article you were able to dig up doesn't prove that you didn't make up the term. And why do you keep avoiding explaining what the term delta code modulation has to do with climate change? It is because it has nothing to do with climate change and you know it.
Random events are part of the average no matter how much you want to pretend they aren't.
Except when the next Superbowl is hosted there. Or when the population of the city increases and the traffic increases(like warming is increasing).
Yes, the site is from Harvard... but the article came from a Russian publication. Face it, long... The article didn't come from Harvard. You were wrong.
Damn,longview... why do you insist on making a fool of yourself every time I go and show how you are wrong about something?
So you'll have no problem citing the empirically established peer reviewed and published AGW climate doomsday papers from them then ?
yaleclimateconnections.org
Costs of renewables? Americans blindly believe the only cost of oil is the price at the pump. Why cannot the coal and oil executives calculate the true cost of their products? It's because they can never quantify it.Nope they are all based on non empirical subjectively applied climate modelling.
Or guesswork for short
Apply billions in funds sequestered by vested interests and usually from the western taxpayers pocket and you are where we are today with for example the UK having the highest energy costs in the Western world due to its massive over commitment to useless renewables.
Fossil fuels work economically where renewables don’t that’s the big difference
How would the costs of fossil fuels be quantified? It's more than just the price at the pump, right? What data do you have to know they're economical?Fossil fuels work economically where renewables don’t that’s the big difference
What are you talking about?
A gallon of gasoline holds about 33 kWh of energy, and can be created at a 60% storage efficiency with 55kWh of electricity.
Oh really?? Just a little more than a week ago you cherry-picked a 90-year trend to try and make it look like US summers were seeing almost no warming. And then when I called you on that cherry-pick and cited what the warming was over a 40-year period(from 1993) you accused me of cherry-picking. So now, all of a sudden, after you have to cherry-pick a period to back up your earlier statement, 45 years is the standard??
Look, long... you gave us all a graph of data starting in 2008. Now if your stated warming trend was of a different period then you should have said so and you wouldn't have to cherry-pick a different period and make yourself look foolish yet again.
Not enough to matter.
You didn't say that Harvard cited it. You said the article came from Harvard. And it didn't come from Harvard, it came from a Russian publication. You were wrong!
Oh, brother... random signals are as much a part of the overall average as systemic signals are. When are you going to quit pushing this misleading BS?
This is just not true. Flogger doesn't know what he is talking about.
I don't suppose you have anything to back up this claim... do you? I doubt it.UK having the highest energy costs in the Western world due to its massive over commitment to useless renewables.
Does that cost include the trillions of dollars that the oil companies are going to have to spend to build new refineries or retrofit old ones to be able to start producing these man-made fuels?
Yep, we're experiencing record high temps in Washington state this weekend!
Tell us, if the time period were earlier than 1978, would the trend be higher or lower?Oh really?? Just a little more than a week ago you cherry-picked a 90-year trend to try and make it look like US summers were seeing almost no warming. And then when I called you on that cherry-pick and cited what the warming was over a 40-year period(from 1993) you accused me of cherry-picking. So now, all of a sudden, after you have to cherry-pick a period to back up your earlier statement, 45 years is the standard??
I swear... you are the biggest cherry-picker I know.
Look, long... you gave us all a graph of data starting in 2008. Now if your stated warming trend was of a different period then you should have said so and you wouldn't have to cherry-pick a different period and make yourself look foolish yet again.
Not enough to matter.
You didn't say that Harvard cited it. You said the article came from Harvard. And it didn't come from Harvard, it came from a Russian publication. You were wrong!
Oh, brother... random signals are as much a part of the overall average as systemic signals are. When are you going to quit pushing this misleading BS?
Nope, and the cost of the front end retrofit will be prorated over dozens of years, the back end of the refinery will remain the same, because assembly of hydrocarbon molecules is the same no what the source of the olefins!
Lower. The further back you go the lower the trend. That is why you had to go back to 1978 to get your ~0.2C per decade trend.
You never said 'cite", you said 'came from'. Not the same thing. Why can't you admit you were wrong?
I understand the differences just fine. I am well aware that it is the systemic signals primarily caused by AGW that are warming the planet and that the random signals from the El Nino Southern Oscillation and weather events both hide and reinforce those systemic signals. Your problem is that you only want to ignore and remove the peaks from El Ninos as if they shouldn't be included while you don't do the same for the valleys that occur when La Ninos happen. And since it is pretty much impossible to precisely quantify all those random events it is pointless to try and remove them from the temperature record like you constantly want to do.
So... your estimate of $96 a barrel is just wrong.
Not at all, the costs of the refinery are there no matter what the source of the olefins are!
There is plenty of documentation that the observed warming associated with AGW began in 1978, but some do place the start at 1980
I'm asking what are the extenalized costs of burning fossil fuels, health care costs, environmental cleanup costs, etc. It is known, for example, that some of those costs are in the billions. But how many billions?
Do we also have to consider the billions of people who are alive and productive today, because of the benefits of fossil fuels?
